Q Under these circumstances, Professor Ivy, could a person take the responsibility of giving Berkatit as the drug that makes seawater potable in practical sea emergency cases?
A I do not understand the first part of that question?
Q If the consumption of seawater leads to severe injury in the long run and if Berkatit water is for all practical purposes identical with seawater, then also the consumption of Berka water must lead to serious injuries. Therefore I ask you, could a person take the responsibility under these circumstances for introducing Berkatit as the drug to be used in practical cases of sea emergency as the drug to render seawater potable for a flier who finds himself in a state of sea emergency?
A No.
Q Now, as we know, Professor, you have just studied the documentation for this trial most carefully, particularly the Document Book V, which deals with seawater. You will agree with me when I say the Technical Office in the RLM was determined, despite the medical misgivings, to introduce Berkatit as the drug to be used to make seawater potable; do you remember the documentation well enough to be able to corroborate this, Professor?
A That is an impression which may be gained from reading the documents.
Q. Let me say in addition, Professor, that the Technical Office of the R L M was the agency which could make the decision on what drug was to be used; now in this case was it not the duty of the medical officer in the Medical Service who was in charge of the troops to do everything he could to prevent the production of Berkatit for at least long enough to determine its usefulness or uselessness?
A. Yes.
Q. Then let me put the following to you in this manner: The experiments that were carried out in Dachau for the purpose of investigating seawater you regarded as useless because from a chemical point of view it was perfectly apparent that Berkatit was useless; was that not the point you expressed in direct examination to Mr. Hardy?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me put two matters to you; you said that during the war you were consulting medical officer in American offices both in the Air Force and the Navy; therefore I may here suppose your understanding for the fact that a responsibile medical officer when considering the introduction of a new drug, would have to consider not only the chemical aspects but also the clinical aspects and particularly in war, also the raw material or technical side; is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng, my two clients, are also of your opinion and were of that opinion in 1944, so far as the chemical side of it is concerned, but from the documents you have seen you know that to manufacture Wofatit, namely the Schaefer drug, silver in large amounst was necessary. In 1944 when Germany was so poor in raw materials, this silver could only have been obtained by taking it away from other agencies where silver was also a necessary vital war material. On the other hand, Berkatit was made of raw materials that were easy to obtain. Do you not agree with me, Professor, that this technical aspect should not be left out of consideration in this ques tion when a medical officer is called upon to make a responsible decision?
A. One must consider the availability of the raw material involved in any process.
Q. Yes. That is, the technical aspect speaks in favor of Berkatit. Now, do you know the name of Professor Eppinger from Vienna?
A. Yes.
Q. You also know of Professor Heubner from Berlin?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you will agree with me, Professor, when I say that these two men are a world famous clinician and a world famous pharmacologist.
A. Yes, they are well known.
Q. Now, as actually was the case, both Professor Huebner and Professor Eppinger said that they could not decide without experiments whether Berkatit was perhaps something that should be introduced in the sea rescue service for a short time; now, in view of that fact would you not give the responsible Luftwaffe medical officer at that time the right to clarify this problem in an experiment, taking into consideration the three aspects, the military, the chemical, and the clinical?
A. I do not think so.
Q. May I ask your reasons for that?
A. The reasons are as I have already indicated. There is no reason to believe there is anything in Berkatit which would in any way effect the salt in the seawater or alter its absorption, retention or secretion from the body.
Q. Quite so, Professor, that I readily admit and my two clients were also of that opinion, but my question is a different one. Perhaps I could precede it with another question. Why does a doctor carry out an experiment? Perhaps, I can give you my opinion on this and it will help to shorten things a bit; either he does this in order to confirm the correctness of his own idea or if there are two points of view, he wishes to confirm the correctness of one of them?
A. He also demonstrates if there is room or reason for two points of view.
Q. Quite so, but you admitted before that both Professor Huebner and Professor Eppinger are recognized authorities; you said that yourself?
A. Yes, but I should not consider them competent in this particular field.
Q. May I ask why not? The clinical aspect of this is a metabolic question, namely to what extent the kidneys are able to concentrate salt; you must admit that at that time there was no one in Europe better qualified to evaluate that problem than Professor Eppinger; or do you feel differently about that?
A. I don't believe that Professor Eppinger had any experience-
Q. Perhaps the interpretor could speak louder. I am not hearing the answers that you present. Professor, will you kindly repeat the last answer?
A. I do not believe that Professor Eppinger had performed experiments on the elimination of salt in the urine and the ability of the kidneys to concentrate salt.
Q. That is a question, which I, as a lawyer, am not competent to decide. I can only base my statements on what has been told me and I believe Professor Eppinger has done a great deal of work in this field, but that does not strike me as being the fundamental question. The basic question is this; if a world renouned clinician, of whose competence there can be no doubt, states: "I, Professor Eppinger, am not in a position to state definitely whether Berkatit should be introduced into practice or not, that must be decided by an experiment"--if such an authority makes such a statement.....
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I believe the witness has answered the question. This is merely an argument persuing between defense counsel and the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection overruled, the Witness may answer the question.
THE WITTNESS: In a situation of that sort, I don't believe the world renowned clinician is entirely competent to answer the question. I would prefer to take the opinion of a physiologist or biochemist on an opinion of that sort in preference to his opinion.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Pardon me for saying so, Professor, but you are evading the question. I will ask you this question; could a responsible medical officer in this situation ignore Professor Eppinger and Professor Huebner's views, two recognized authorities, when they say that from their point of view experiments are necessary; could he do that or should he rather say, I am of a different opinion from that of these two authorities, however, whether I am right or these two authorities are right must be decided by an experiment. I believe you can give a perfectly clear answer to that question?
A. It is not necessary to ignore such an opinion, but one should not necessarily base their acts on that opinion without seekin the opinions I have already mentioned, such as a biochemist and a physiologist, who have worked on the subject of salt metabolism.
Q Well, Professor Schroeder is very sorry that you were not his advisor at that time; but, I can only repeat that if the world renowned clinician, who is regarded as an authority and whose opinion is not to be disregarded, if such a man says it is possible that Berkatit contains substances that permit a higher concentration in the kidney, at least for a certain length of time, in my opinion a medical officer is not to disregard such an attitude on the part of this well known authority, but must do what this authority suggests, namely, carry out an experiment, particularly if the other side, namely a Pharmacologist expresses a different attitude.
A It still does not mean that the experiment was necessary.
Q I am afraid we are not understanding one another. I am not trying to hear from you whether the experiment is necessary. That the experiment was not necessary, that Berkatit was not suitable, that was decided in the experiment. I want to hear from you whether or not it was not right to carry out experiments for this reason: first, the raw materials problem played a role; and, secondly, two scientific authorities spoke in favor of having the experiments carried out. These questions were under debate, and I do not believe that you can assert that all these reasons should simply be disregarded, and that a person should say: I will not carry out any experiments. These two factors, the scientific opinions of the scientists and the raw materials question must be taken into consideration by the medical officer in question.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I object to this. This is purely argument. The witness has answered this question for him on two occasions. And he is trying to put words in the mouth of the witness, and get the witness to say things which the witness does not believe. I must object and request that the question be stricken from the record.
JUDGE SEBRING: The Tribunal will propound the question to the witness.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Doctor Ivy, I am not sure I understand the nature of your statement, but is this what it amounts to? It is your view that it can be ascertained chemically and with absolute certainty that the Schaefer Wofatit would precipitate salt from seawater; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And, it could be ascertained chemically with absolute certainty that Berka's Berkatit would not precipitate salt from seawater?
A That is my opinion.
Q And, that consequently any experiment carried on with Berkatit would be in essence nothing more or loss than an experiment carried on with seawater. Is that the point?
A That is correct.
Q And, it is your view that when those situations exist, and you have on the one hand Schaefer's Wofatit that can be proven chemically as being able to precipitate salt from sea water; and on the other hand, you have Berka's Berkatit which will not precipitate the salt; that you do not have two preparations or substances so closely akin or in common as to warrant an experiment with Berkatit when you note that the effect, that the prime result or effect is a testing of a product on the one hand that will precipitate salt from seawater, and a product on the other hand that will not precipitate salt from seawater, where the prime objective is to determine a method to make sea water potable; is that your point?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me the question propounded to the witness was purely argumentative. Does the Counsel desire to propound any other questions to the witness?
DR. TIPP: I have a number of question, which perhaps it will be better to put after the recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Professor, if I understood your attitude to Berkatit correctly-namely, as you stated it in the direct examination, you expressed the view at the time that due to the pleasant taste which Berkatit lends to sea water, it would lead the shipwrecked to drink large amounts of sea water, as, for example, occurred with experimental subject number 2. Did I understand you correctly in that respect?
A. Yes, I believe there is a tendency in that direction.
Q. And is this correct too, Professor? Did I understand your statement correctly that your experimental subject number 3-- a physician who, during three days, drank only about 800 CC of sea water--did not have any complaints due to that?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now you certainly know, Professor, you have already mentioned this with Bieglock, that not only the excessive loss of water but also the loss of salt, that is, of sodium chloride, can bring with it damaging results. Did I understand you correctly in that respect too? I mean, that the loss of sodium chloride occasioned by thirsting is damaging?
A. No, I think that you must have misunderstood some statement that I made.
Q. Professor-
A. If one loses salt as the result of perspiration, then that loss of salt is deleterious.
Q. I thought, Professor, it was pointed out that through the loss in the blood, the so-called hypochlorenia -- that is, the sodium choloride loss in the blood is important, and that therefore there can be some damaging results.
A. That only occurs with excessive sweating.
Q. But one thing must be correct, Professor. You have already stated today that a number of scientists, among them Ledell, were of the opinion that the administration of small amounts of sea water is better than pure thirsting.
A. Yes, because they would gain a little water, perhaps 100 CC, and still would be able to excrete that salt in the urine that would otherwise be formed and excreted.
Q. Now, Professor Ivy, I want to speak with you about the testimony of the expert, Professor Vollhardt. You have read his testimony, and therefore you will admit that he too stated that the drinking of small amounts of sea water is to be preferred to absolute thirsting; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is my recollection.
Q. Therefore, Professor, it is correct that the drinking of large amounts of sea water is harmful. On the contrary, however, the drinking of small amounts is not harmful; yes, according to the opinion of some scientists, is even to be preferred to thirsting. Now, in your statements you thought that you saw a contradiction in the statements made by Professor Vollhardt. I don't quite understand what this contradiction was supposed to be; perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify this contradiction somewhat further.
A I should have to refer to the record.
MR. HARDY: The two points that defense counsel referred to, Your Honor, I have typewritten here, but I don't have the record. If he wants me to read the two points to him to aid in examining Dr. Ivy, I will point out the page numbers. Dr. Ivy has the record before him and he can refer to it if necessary. The first one is on page 8483, the language is the middle of the page in the Vollhardt testimony, beginning with the word "however". The next is at the bottom of the next page, page 8484, wherein Vollhardt testifies that drinking sea water with Berkatit would have serious consequences after six days. I believe those were the two pages you referred to.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q On those two places I could find no contradiction, Professor. Perhaps you could clarify the contradiction which you think you find in these two pages.
A On Page 8384 the sentence reads: "However the experiments did not give a definite supportive evidence of that but they did have an important result, not only the obvious result, namely that the Schaefer water was superior to anything else, but also the observation that the kidneys can nevertheless concentrate so astonishly well up to the concentration of sea water that in the future one could give the advice that in cases of sea distress instead of being completely thirsty, one could rather drink 500cc. of sea water and in that manner increase the salt contents of the blood but would not have to be afraid of dedydradion quite so quickly." On Page 8484 the answer at the bottom of the page. First the question: "And you went on to say, Professor, that the "admonition" of water with Berkatit which is equal to sea water would have done serious injury in practice, and provided it went on over six days would lead to death?" And the answer is: "It would have serious consequences after going on for over six days and would most certainly lead to death after --" which was the end of the sentence. Now on page 8484, it is indicated that the consumption of sea water could, on going over six days, lead certainly to death, whereas on Page 8483 it states that one could give the advice that in cases of sea distress, instead of being completely thirsty, one could rather drink 500cc.
of sea water and would not have to be afraid of dedydration quite so quickly. If Prof. Vollhardt had. used 100 or 200 cc. of sea water, then in my opinion there would have been no contradiction. The contradiction is in the fact that the record shows 500cc.
Q Professor, you thus are of the opinion that the contradiction is the amount of the sea water consumed which Prof. Vollhardt suggested?
A Yes.
Q Well now, in my opinion it is as follows: If a man who is at sea distress drinks pure sea water that has not been treated in any way, he will-- and you will probably confirm this -- because of the disagreable taste alone will not drink large amounts. On the other hand, if he consumes water that has been treated with Berkatit, which has a good taste, the danger exists that he will consume larger amounts and increasing amounts and that this is the danger of Berkatit. Am I right in that respect?
A I did not get that impression from reading that.
MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, may I ask defense counsel if he intends to imply that the Vollhardt testimony is substantially as he stated it here or just what is the purpose of his question? Is it his own opinion, the opinion of his client, or does he wish Dr. Ivy to assume that opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel asking Dr. Ivy his opinion on that matter?
DR. TIPP: If I may see by way of supplement, I asked Dr. Ivy whether this was the opinion which Prof. Vollhardt represented here, and whether it is the same opinion that the expert has, because the contradiction which Prof. Ivy found in Prof. Vollhardt's testimony I cannot find, for the very reason I have just stated.
A I can't confirm the interpretation of the attorney. The contradiction in the two statements, insofar as my rereading of the words and sentences on the two pages, indicate that the contradiction is one in regard to the amount of sea water.
I did not gain the idea from reading this that treating the water with Berkatit might cause them to drink more of it -- which, however, is the definite possibility, in my opinion, I have already testified to that.
Q Well, now Prof. I want to leave that subject, and I again want to go back to the discussion of some documents. May I ask you to turn to Prosecution Document Book No. 3 in regard to sea water experiments, the document book about sea water, and to look at document NO 171, exhibit 132. I believe it is page 10 in the English document book, NO 171. It is entitled, Notes about the discussion making sea water potable, on 20 May 1944. It has been pointed out to me it is document 177. I beg your pardon. It is on page 11 in the English Document Book, minutes of the two meetings.
A I have it.
Q All right. The document reads and I quote:" At this meeting Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Col. Dr. von Sirany and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for final decision. The chief of the medical service is convinced that if the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than six days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent damage to health and according to the opinion of Dr. Schaefer will result in death after not later than 12 days." In order to simplify matters I want to assume that Dr. Becker-Freyseng really made this report, actually in the same way as it is reported here. Can you tell me, Professor about which experiments they are speaking in this quotation here?
A I believe they are speaking about the experiments which later were done at Dachau, and I might say that I agree with the statement that you read.
Q May I ask you, Professor, you say "I believe". I would like to ask you what you base your belief on in reference to this quotation which I just read.
As far as I can see, this entire quotation does not speak about any experiments at Dachau. It begins:" At this meeting Dr. BeckerFreyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Col. D. von Sirany." Perhaps the "Dr. von Sirany" does not mean anything to you in this connection, or do you know what experiments are meant here in saying the experiments of Dr. von Sirany?
AAccording to my other reading, he is supposed to have done some experiments with Berka water.
Q Yes, and the experiments were conducted at the airforce hospital in Vienna, at the Luftwaffe hospital in Vienna. Therefore I don't know from what you want to conclude that they were talking about the experiments at Dachau here. Would you please tell me why?
AAccording to the impression that I have gained from reading the documents in sequence and the record, this was a preliminary discussion to the experiments at Dachau.
Q Excuse me professor, but I would like to point out to you the following sentence: First, it is a description of the external symptoms. Then it says, and I quote again, "As a result of the preliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange new series of experiments of short duration." Does that not indicate that the preceding sentences refer to the preliminary discussions and that this preliminary discussion had as its subjects the experiments in Vienna? Otherwise the formulation "as a result of the preliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange new experiments of short duration," would not be comprehensible.
A I obtain the idea that this referred to the experiments of Dr. Sirany and that new experiments were to be planned because his experiments were objectionable.
Q Yes, to that extent, I agree with you. This description refers to Sirany's experiments and perhaps can you also confirm the following opinion which, I have, namely that the damage to the health which could be expected refers not to the experiments, but to the introduction of Berkatit into practice, which was feared.
A: I believe that refers to the damage to health which is to be expected to occur in the case there berkatit is used to treat seawater.
Q: Yes. Thus, this damage will result if berkatit would be introduced as a preparation in the practical sea rescue service?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. Now, Professor Ivy, another question in regard to this same document. After the statements by Mr. Hardy to you, you made a statement regarding No. 2 of this document. May I quote to you briefly? "In addition to these experiments which were supposed to last six days, a further experiment is supposed to be carried on as follows: No. 2, persons nourished with seawater and berkatit, and as dict also the prescribed emergency sea rations. Duration of experiments: 12 days. Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service, permanent injuries to health or the death of the experimental subjects have to be expected, only such persons should be used as experimental subjects as will be put at disposal by the Reichsfuchrer-SS."
In answer to the question of the prosecutor in regard, to this, you stated that you could explain this sequence of the experiments only by saying that the survival time was supposed to be found out by means of these experiments. Now may I ask you what you mean by "survival time" in this context?
By that I mean the length of time that one might survive if they used berka water or seawater treated with berkatit. I said that because on Page 12 of the English record, it is stated that "the Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that if the Berka Method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than six days after taking berkatit; which damage will result in permanent injuries to health." And according to the opinion of NCO, Dr. Schaefer, "the final result in death, not later than 12 days". I think that is sound advice -- physiological advice -- bio-chemical advice; and then here the experiment was set up for the duration, for 12 days, in spite of the warning that permanent damage or death might result if you took it longer than six days.
Q: Professor, can you tell me whether in the entire program of experiment s-you have the documents in front of you -- in this entire sequence of experiments, did you find anywhere any reason for thinking that anybody mas interested in finding out the survival time?
A: No, only with the exception of the implications of those two statements.
Q: All right, Professor, may I now ask you also, is the only important factor in the determination of the survival time -- if we shall call it that -- is that the time face or or are there not also other factors which have to be considered; in other words, is only the ti* time element important, for how long the experimental subject drinks berkatit water, but is it not also important how much the person drinks on each single day?
A: Yes, that is correct; and also the environmental conditions are important, and the conditions of the subject at the beginning of the experiment.
Q: Do you now think in this entire program which is laid down here and as the experiments were carried out, do you find anything about a statement that an amount if seawater was administered or was supposed to be administered which from the very beginning would bring about fatal consequence?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Thus you are saying that the concept of survival time can be seen only from this document, but that the rest of the program and the actual execution are contrary to the planning of such an experiment as is described here, apparently?
A: Yes, the longest that 1,000 cc of seawater was supposed to have been given at the Dachau experiments was either 9½ days or 10½ days.
Q: Now let us go to another subject, Professor Ivy. You said to my colleague, Dr Sauter, that you wrote to the Public Service Office in order to obtain conscientious objectors as experimental subjects. Am I remembering that correctly, Professor Ivy?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Would you please now be so kind as to tell us again what points you wrote down in this letter. Perhaps as a preliminary question, I want to ask why did you, in order to obtain experimental subjects, address yourself particularly to this office?
A: This office was a division of the Selective Service which had under its supervision conscientious objectors.
Q: Thus if I understand you correctly, it was the office which could give the permission first, basically, for the execution of these experiments?
A: No, they would determine whether or not the conscientious objectors could be used as experimental subjects for the experiment.
Q: Yes. In other words, this office first found out whether such experimental subjects were available?
A: That is correct.
Q: Yes. Then you said further, if I remember correctly, that in this letter you describe the problem that was concerned and that you said you told them why the experiments were to be executed. I believe that is correct too, is it not?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Furthermore, you requested a definite number of experimental subjects and for a definite period and also for a definite place, if I am not mistaken, is that correct too?
A: Yes.
Q: I assume that you told this office too that you or one of your assistants or another physician would supervise the experiment and that the office could be at ease and could be sure that the experiment would be carried out by qualified scientists, is that correct too?
A: Yes, that is correct; as a matter of fact, the project or program of experimentation was passed on by the appropriate committee of the National Research Council.
Q: Professor, may I then ask you to look in the sea water experiment book, at the Prosecution Document NO-185, Prosecution Exhibit 134. It is on Page 18 in the English Document Book.. It is a letter of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to the Reich Minister of the Interior, of the 7th of June 1944. The question of the voluntary nature of the experimental subjects which is discussed in the first sentence of this document, I ask you not to consider at the moment. I only ask you to look at the rest of the sentences, and then to tell me whether this document does not contain the same points essentially as you put down in your letter to the Selective Service?
A: I might say that our application was much more extensive, much more in detail than this, and that the scientific value of the experiment -- the way the experiment was to be designed and conducted-was also approved by the appropriate committee of the National Research Council.
Q: But essentially you will admit, Professor, that this document contains the same points which you just described to us. The first sentences describe the problem: the two methods which are to be decided upon. The next paragraph tells why the experiments are necessary. The next paragraph requests the experimental subjects, and states where the experiments are to take place. On the second page, Dr. Beigiboeck is mentioned as the directing physician. Finally, there is the usual closing-statement, which was contained also in your letter. I am here not concerned with details, Professor Ivy, but only with the fact that you probably have to admit that essentially this letter states the same thing that you too stated in your application with the corresponding differences, of course.
A: Yes, but then there is no scientist involved in this exchange of correspondence. It's an administrative officer to an administrative officer.
Q: Certainly, Professor, but it is important to me only to clarify that this is the letter from an administrative office with scientific assistants, to be sure, which applies to another administrative office, which first had to give on principle the permission that experimental subjects could be put at their disposal at all.
MR. HARDY: So that Dr. Ivy may get the full significance of this, I suggest that Defense Counsel bring home the knowledge of the balance of the letter written by Becker-Freyseng for the signature of Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: His testimony was to that effect, Counsel.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. I believe we agreed more or less, Professor. If I understood you correctly, you criticized in this letter only the fact that it does not contain the necessary scientific specifications. In regard to this, I may perhaps tell you from the testimony of Prof, Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng that this letter is only a summary of the discussions which had already taken place between Prof. Schroeder and the competent physicians who were working on this, the Reich Physician of the SS and Police, so that the scientific subjects had been clarified already in advance, in detail, and this letter was only a formal matter and only had to contain the scientific question quite briefly. Now, a further question, Professor Ivy. When you had made your application for those performing public service, what did you do next? Perhaps I may say in advance that probably you received a notification to the effect that you were permitted to carry out the experiment at such and such a place; is that correct?
A. Yes, and then we received notification regarding the place that the conscientious objectors would come from, and approximately their time of arrival at the place where the experiment was going to be performed.
Q. Yes. Professor, did you carry out those experiments yourself, under your own guidance and direction?
A. Yes, I was present while these experiments were going on. I made some of the clinical examinations myself, and checked over sometimes the daily records, and always the weekly records.
Q. Would you have had misgivings, Professor, if you had not carried out the experiments personally, but had let another physician whom you knew as a good scientist carry out the experiments?